By Tho. Woolston, B.D. sometime Fellow of Sidney-College
in Cambridge.

LONDON:

TO THE

Right Reverend Father in God

THOMAS,

Lord Bishop of Bangor.

My Lord,

Whatever we poor Authors may sometimes pretend to, by the
Dedication of our Works to Great Men; it's certain we aim at
nothing less than Rewards and Preferments, whether we deserve them or not:
That this is my Design in Dedications, is so apparent, that it's
to no Purpose to deny or dissemble it.

Wherefore else have I made Choice of some of our Learned and Wealthy Bishops
for the Patrons of[Pg
iv] these Discourses, which I foresaw would be
grateful to their nice and critical Palates? Wherefore else have I been so
profuse of such Compliments on their Lordships, as I was sure,
they would take great Pleasure in? Wherefore else, My Lord, do I
inscribe this to your Right Reverend Name, but that I
expect your Approbation of it, and hope for a Recompence, equal to the
Honour, that is here done you.

Some, who are envious, My Lord, of my good Fortune in Episcopal
Patrons, will not believe that I have receiv'd so much as one Purse
of Gold for any of my Dedications; but I would have such
Malignants to know, that the less I have receiv'd, the more there is
behind: And I can moreover assure them, that their Lordships have
it in their Heads and their Hearts too, highly to advance me in the World;
and if their Endeavours for my Promotion fail not, I shall be a very Great
Man.

Such primitive Doctrine, My Lord, as I have reviv'd, must, in the
Judgment of our Bishops, be deserving of their distinguish'd
Favours: And if they should Design for me such a mystical Crown of
Glory, as the Gentile Priests help'd some of the Fathers of the
Church to; I profess without Dissimulation, that, for all my Love to Mysteries,
it will be more than I am ambitious of: But if the Honour is forc'd on me,
it will be my Duty to their Lordships, to sound an allegorical
Trumpet of their Fame, that their Names, which, might otherwise be soon
forgotten, may be everlastingly remember'd for their Love and Good-will
towards me.

But the chief Foundation, My Lord, of my Merits lies, they say,
in my Treatment of the Miracles of our Saviour, after the Manner you
handled a Scripture-Prophecy, of a Man's kicking a Serpent on the
Pate, for biting him by the Heels:[Pg
vi] And if your Lordship got a Welsh-Bishoprick
upon it, what may not I expect for my more meritorious Works of the same
kind? The Great Mr. Scheme has celebrated your Praise for that
Effort of your Wit: And I must needs say, to your Lordship's
Applause, that were not your Thoughts unhappily shackled with Interest and
Subscriptions, (an Unhappiness you sadly lament!) you would endeavour to
make as pleasant Work with the Letter of the Old, as I can
do with that of the New Testament.

I have not here Room, My Lord, for a sufficient and deserv'd Encomium
on your Use and Intent of Prophecy; therefore must be content to
say of it, in short, that it is a most curious Piece of, what the Fathers
call, Engastromuthism; or such a singular Specimen of a Webb, spun
out of a Man's own Bowels, as one of fewer Brains in his Head can hardly
equal.

It was wisely done of your Lordship to caution your Readers
against taking your Book for an Answer to Mr. Grounds;
otherwise it had not been impossible, but some others as well as the Worshipful
Benchers of the Temple might have mistaken the Use
and Intent of it.

After I had gone thro' your beautifully-printed Work, I wish'd, My
Lord, for another Decoration of it, that some Annotations
out of the Fathers had been subjoin'd to it. How would your Notions then
and Theirs about Prophecy have stood as a Foil to each other! How
should I then have admired the Difference between a Rich Bishop
and a Poor Father as to Wit and Sense! How should I then have
contemplated the Usefulness of Ecclesiastical Wealth in our Clergy
for the Understanding of the Inspirations of the poor old Prophets!

When your Lordship is call'd upon for another Edition of your Book,[Pg
viii] vouchsafe me the Favour of making some marginal
Remarks on it, which shall not be without their good Use. As you know,
savoury Sawce makes some sort of Food go down the better; so a little more
of that Salt, which Mr. Scheme has too sparingly sprinkled on your
Work, will give your Readers, a right Relish of it: But
whether I am indulg'd this Favour or not; I than take another opportunity,
according to Promise elsewhere made, of testifying to the World, how much
I am,

A FIFTH

DISCOURSE

ON THE

MIRACLES

OF OUR

SAVIOUR, &c.

According to Promise in my last Discourse, I am in this to
take into Examination the three Miracles of Jesus's raising the
dead, viz. Of Iairus's Daughter[270];
of the Widow of Naim's Son[271];
and of Lazarus[272]:
The literal Stories of which[Pg
2] I shall show to consist of Absurdities, Improbabilities
and Incredibilities, in Order to the mystical Interpretation of them: And
because some of our Bishops and Clergy were a little
disgusted at the ludicrous Treatment of the Letter of some
foregoing Miracles, I will handle these with the more Caution; being as
unwilling, as any Man of my primitive Faith can be, to offend weak
Brethren.

Whether Jesus rais'd any more from the dead, besides the foresaid
three Persons is uncertain from the Evangelical History. St. Augustin[273]
thinks, he rais'd many others; and he founds his Opinion on the modest Hyperbole
of St. John, who supposes[274]the World it self could not contain the Books that might be Written of
Jesus. And Eusebius Gallicanus, of whose Mind entirely I am,
says[275]
the Reason lies in the Mystery, why these three, and no more than
these three Miracles of this[Pg
3] Kind are recorded by the Evangelists. But since
our Divines are averse to Mysteries on Miracles, I would gladly
know their Opinion, whether Jesus rais'd any others from the dead,
or not: I have made some search into modern Writers for their Opinion in
this Case, but can't find it: And unless I knew their Opinion, it would be
lost Labour to argue against either Side of the Question, and much more
against both Sides of it: But I can assure our Divines, that,
which Side of the Question soever they should hold, the Consequence upon
the Argument would be neither better nor worse, than that they must of
necessity espouse the mystical and allegorical Interpretation of these
Miracles, or grant that Jesus literally rais'd none from the dead
at all.

But waving that sort of Argument for the present against the Letter;
these three Miracles are reputed the greatest that Jesus wrought:
And I believe, it will be granted on all hands, that the restoring a
Person, indisputably dead, to Life again, is a stupendous Miracle; and
that two or three such Miracles well circumstanced, and credibly reported,
are enough to conciliate the Belief of Mankind, that the Author of them
was a divine Agent, and invested with the Power of God, or he[Pg
4] could not do them. But God knows, (and for the sake of
the Mystery, I am not sorry to say it) this is far from being the Case of
these three Miracles before us, or of any one them.

That these three Miracles are not equally great, but differ in Degree, is
visible enough to any one, that but cursorily reads, and compares theirs
Stories one with another. The Fathers of the Church[276]
have taken Notice of such a Difference amongst them. The greatest of the
three, and indeed, the[277]
greatest Miracle, that Jesus is suppos'd to have wrought, is that
of Lazarus's Resurrection; which, in Truth, was a most prodigious
Miracle, if his Corps was putrified and stank; or if there were no just
Exceptions to be made to the Credibility of the Story. Next to that, in
magnitude, is Jesus's raising of[Pg
5] the Widow's Son, as they were carrying him to his
Burial: And a great Miracle it was to bring him to Life again; if none
before or since had been mistaken for dead, and carried to their Graves
alive; or if no Impostor and his Confederates could frame such a seemingly
miraculous Scene, as is that whole Story, to his own Glory. The least of
the three is that of his raising Jairus's Daughter, which in
Appearance is so far from a Miracle, that according to the Story itself,
she was but asleep, or by the Shrieks of By-standers frighted out of her
Senses for the present.

But however it really might be with these three supposed dead and revived
Persons; the Case of none of them was well enough circumstanced to serve
the Purpose of our Divines. I am apt to believe with the Fathers,
that Jesus actually did raise the dead; but then, as these
Miracles are only recorded for the sake of the Mystery, I affirm
that none of them, as to the Letter, will abide the Test of a
critical Examination, nor stand its Ground against such Exceptions as may
be made to them. If Jesus was to raise any dead Bodies to Life,
for a Testimony of his divine Power and Authority, he would and should
have made Choice of other dead Persons, under other Circumstances of
Death; and[Pg
6] the History of their Resurrection should have been more
credibly and carefully transmitted to Posterity, so as there should have
been no Room left to make a reasonable Doubt of the Truth of it. But this,
I say, is not the Case in the Resuscitation of any of these Persons, as
will appear from the following Remarks and Observations upon them. And

1. Observe, that the unnatural and preposterous Order of Time, in which
these Miracles are related, justly brings them all under suspicion of
Fable and Forgery. The greatest of the three is indisputably that of Lazarus's
Resurrection; but since this is only mention'd by St. John, who
wrote his Gospel after the other Evangelists, and above sixty
Years, according to the best Computation, after our Lord's Ascension; here
is too much Room for Cavil and Question, whether this Story be not
entirely his Invention. What could be the Reason that Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, who all wrote their Gospel's before John, and
many Years nearer to the Death of our Saviour, should omit to record this
remarkable and most illustrious Miracle of Lazarus? They could not
forget it, nor be ignorant of it, if the Story had been really true; and
to assign any[Pg
7] other Reason than Ignorance or Forgetfulness, is hard
and impossible. To aggrandize the Fame of their Master, for a Worker of
Miracles, was the Design of all the Evangelists, especially of the
three first, who may be presumed to make a Report of the greatest, if not
of all, that Jesus wrought: But that there should come after them
an Evangelist with an huge and superlatively great Miracle, and
meet with Credit for it, is against all Sense and Reason; neither is there
any Story, so disorderly told, in all History, that Critics will
admit of the Belief of. The first Writer of the Life of an Hero,
to be sure makes mention of all the grand Occurrences of it, and leaves no
Room for Biographers afterwards, but to enlarge and paraphrase
upon what he has written, with some other Circumstances and Additions of
less Moment. If a third or a fourth Biographer after him shall
presume to add a more illustrious Transaction of the Hero's Life,
it will be rejected as Fable and Romance, tho' for no other Reason than
this, that the first Writer must have been appris'd of it, and would have
inserted its Story, if there had been any Truth in it. And whether St. John's
Story of Lazarus's Resurrection, that Miracle of Miracles, ought
not to be subjected to the like Criticism upon it,[Pg
8]Christians may consider, and Infidels
will judge.

What then was the Reason, I ask again, that the three first Evangelists
neglected to record this renown'd Miracle of Lazarus? And why too
(may I enquire here) did not Matthew and Mark mention the
Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, as they could not but know of
it, if true, more certainly than Luke, the Companion of Paul,
who alone has made a Report of it? Grotius says,[278]it may seem strange that this illustrious Miracle of the Widow's Son
was omitted by Matthew and Mark: And what is the Reason
that Grotius gives for this strange Omission? Why, he tells us[279]that these two Evangelists were content with one miraculous Instance of
this Kind, by which Christians might judge of Jesus's Power in
others also. And is this Reason sufficient? True it is, they were
content with one Instance; but if they had made a Report of two or three
more of the same sort, no body would have thought their History of Christ
overcharg'd with impertinent and tautological Repetitions.[Pg
9] But one Instance of a Person rais'd from the dead, they
were, says Grotius, content with: And I'll grant one to be
sufficient: But which then should they, as wise and considerate Historians
have made Choice of, the greatest or the least Miracle? The greatest, to
be sure, and that was of Lazarus, or of the Widow's Son, if they
knew of either. But instead of either of these, they tell us the Story of
Jairus's Daughter, that is[280]
an imperfect and disputable Miracle, in Comparison of the other two, which
consequently they knew nothing at all of, or they would have preferr'd the
Report of them.

If Matthew, the first Writer, had recorded only the Story of Lazarus,
whose Resurrection was the greatest Miracle; and if Luke had added
that of the Widow of Naim's Son; and John lastly
had remember'd us of Jairus's Daughter, which the other Evangelists,
not through Ignorance or Forgetfulness, but studying Brevity, had omitted,
then all had been well; and no Objection had hence lain against the Credit
of any of these Miracles, or against the Authority of the Evangelists:
But this unnatural and preposterous[Pg
10] Order of Time, in which these Miracles are recorded
(the greatest being postponed to the least) administers just Occasion of
suspicion of the Truth and Credibility of all their Stories. And it is
lucky for Christianity, that Jews and Infidels have not
hitherto hit upon the Absurdity of this preposterous Narration, or
they might have form'd a cogent Objection against these Miracles thus,
saying;

"Jesus, it is manifest, rais'd not the dead at all. The only
Person, that Christians can reasonably pretend, he did raise, was Jairus's
Daughter, whom Matthew writes of; and she, according to the
Story was only in a Sleep, or an Extacy, when Jesus revived her.
But the Galileans, who were after a Time call'd Christians,
finding their Account in a Resurrection-Miracle; Luke, for the
former Advantage of the Cause, devised another Story of better
Circumstances, in the Widow of Naim's Son: But this not being so
great a Miracle, as the Church still wanted; John, when no body
was alive to contradict and expostulate with him for it, trumps up a
long Story of a thumping Miracle, in Jesus's raising of Lazarus,
who had been not only dead, but buried so long[Pg
11] that he stank again. But to prove the Story of this
Miracle to be false and fabulous, we need say no more than that it was
last recorded. If there had been any Truth in it, the first Evangelist
would have remember'd us of it.

"We don't suppose, that you Christians, because of your Prejudices,
will subscribe to this Account, that we thus give of the Rise of these
Miracles: But this is certain, that if these three Miracles had not been
reported of Jesus, but of Mahomet, in the same disorder
of Time, by three different Historians, you would presently have scented
the Forgery and Imposture: You would justly have affirm'd that the three
Stories were apparently three Fables and Falsehoods; and that the three
Historians visibly strove to outstretch each other: That the first
was sparing and modest in his Romance; and the second, being
sensible of the Insufficiency of the former's Tale, devises a Miracle of
a bigger Size; which still not proving sufficient to the End proposed;
the third Writer, rather than his Prophet's Honour should sink
for want of a Resurrection-Miracle, forges a Story of a monstrously huge
one; against which it is, and always will be Objection enough, that it
was not[Pg
12] related by the first Historian. So would you
Christians argue against these three Miracles in another Impostor's
Case; and there is not a judicious Critic in the Universe, that
would not approve of the Argument, and applaud the Force of it, tho' you
will not endure the Thoughts of it in the Case of your Jesus.

"But to come nearer home to you; supposing John (who was then
above a Hundred, and in his Dotage) had not reported this Miracle of Lazarus;
but that Clement (joining it with his[281]
incredible Story of the Resurrection of a Phœnix) or Ignatius,
or Polycarp, or the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions
had related it; would not your Christian Critics have been at
work to explode it? There is not an antient extra-evangelical Tradition
of any Note about Jesus, that some or other of your Critics
have not boggled at; but such a Story as this of Lazarus would
have been received by none. I question, whether Mr. Whiston
would not have rejected the Constitutions upon such a Story in
them; or if his Fancy for some other Things in them had overcome his[Pg
13] Reason against this; yet Bishop Smallbroke,
who has written against the Canonicalness of the Constitutions,
with his judicious Animadversions upon this Story, would absolutely have
overthrown their Authority. And what would he have said here? Not only
that the Miracle smells rankly of Forgery and Fraud, or the Evangelists,
especially Matthew, had never forgotten to record it; but he
would have reminded us of intrinsic Notes (hereafter to be mention'd)
of Absurdity, and Incredibility, that would for ever have cashier'd the
Belief of it. And whether we Infidels ought not to take the same
Liberty to criticize on John's Gospel, which you do on your
Apostolical Fathers, who wrote before him, let the impartial and
unprejudiced judge: If in justice we ought to take it; we are sure we
could give two or three notable Reasons (but that We will not now put
Christians out of Temper with them) why John may be suspected of
a Mistake or Fraud in this Miracle, rather than any other Christian
Writer of the first or second Century."

To such an unhappy Objection, arising from the unnatural and preposterous
Order of Time, in which they are recorded,[Pg
14] are these three Miracles before us obnoxious. And I am
thinking how Ministers of the Letter will be able to get over it. As for
my self, who am for the mystical Interpretation of these Miracles, I have
a solid and substantial Answer at hand to the foresaid Objection, an
Answer that curiously accounts for the Order of Time in which these
Miracles are related; but my Answer will not please our Divines,
nor stand them in any stead; therefore they must look up another good one
of their own, that will comport with the Letter; or the said
Objection, improved with another presently against Lazarus's
Resurrection, will be too hard, not for Christianity it self, but for
their Ministry.

Grotius, being aware of the foresaid Objection, has given us such
a[282]
Solution of it as then occurr'd to his Thoughts. Dr. Whitby, not
being satisfied with Grotius's[Pg
15] Solution, has given us[283]
another: But how weak and insufficient both their Solutions are, I will
not spare Time to consider, till some Writer shall appear in
Defence of the Sufficiency and Strength of one or other of them. And so I
pass to a

2. Second Observation, by Way of Objection to the Letter of these
Miracles, and that is, by enquiring, what became of these three Persons
after their Resurrection? How long did they live afterwards? And of what
Use and Advantage were their restored Lives to the Church or to Mankind?
The Evangelical and Ecclesiastical History is entirely silent as to these
Questions, which is enough to make us suspect their Stories to be merely
romantick or parabolical; and that there were no such Persons rais'd from
the dead; or we must have heard somewhat of their Station and[Pg
16] Conversation in the World afterwards. It's true, that Ephiphanius[284]
says, what he found among Traditions, that Lazarus lived thirty
Years after his Resurrection: But how did he spend his Time all that
while? Was it to the Honour of Jesus, to the Service of the
Church, and Propagation of the Gospel? Of that we know nothing; tho' in
Reason and Gratitude to Jesus, his Benefactor, it ought to have
been so spent; and if it had been so employ'd, History surely would have
inform'd us of it. According to the Opinion of Grotius, in a
Citation above, Lazarus for the rest of his restored Life
absconded, and skull'd about the Country for Fear of the Jews, who
lay in Wait for him; which is a Suggestion, not only dishonourable to Jesus,
as if the same Power, that rais'd him from the dead, could not protect him
against his Enemies; but reproachful to Lazarus himself, who
should have chosen to suffer Death again, rather than not bear an open
Testimony to Jesus, the Author of his Resurrection. However it
was, we hear no more of Lazarus, than that he lived thirty Years
afterwards, which Tradition,[Pg
17] without other Memorials of his Life, brings the Miracle
more under suspicion of Fable, than if he had dy'd soon after it. And of Jairus's
Daughter, and of the Widow of Naim's Son, which is astonishing, we
read nothing at all. Does not this Silence in History about them, make
their Miracles questionable, and but like Gulliverian Tales of
Persons and Things, that out of the Romance, never had any Being.

Jesus did but[285]call a little Child, and set him in the midst of his Disciples; and
that Act was remember'd in the Piety and Zeal[286]
of Ignatius, who made a renown'd Bishop. But the Favour and
Blessing conferr'd on these three rais'd Persons was exceedingly greater;
and one might have expected, that Lazarus and the Widow's Son
would have been eminent Ministers of the Gospel. But instead of that,
their Lives afterwards were pass'd in Obscurity, or, what's as bad,
Ecclesiastical History has neglected a Report of them. What can any one
hereupon think less, than that the Favour of the Miracles was lost on
undeserving Persons, which I abhor the Thoughts of; or that their Stories[Pg
18] are but Parables, which I rather incline to.

Ministers of the Letter may here say, "That the Ecclesiastical
History of the Apostolical Age is very scanty; and that many Memorials of
other Persons and Transactions are lost and buried in Oblivion: Which
unhappy Fate has attended the after-Lives and Actions of these rais'd
Persons, or undoubtedly we should have had a famous Record of them." This
is not impossible; tho' in the Wisdom of Providence it is hardly probable,
but that some more Remembrance must have been left of one or other, if not
of all the three Persons; in as much as such a Remembrance of them would
now-a-days have no less gain'd a Belief of the Miracles, than this
Historical Silence tends to the Discredit of them.

It's somewhat strange, that we hear no more of the after-Fame and Life of
any of the diseased Persons, whom Jesus miraculously cured;
excepting of the Woman, heal'd of an Issue of Blood; who, tho' she spent
ALL she had, even ALL her Living upon Physicians;
yet out of the Remains of it erected, says[287]Eusebius, at Cæsarea Philippi, two most costly Statues of
Brass, to the Memory of[Pg
19]Jesus and of herself, and of the Miracle
wrought by him; which Dr. Whitby[288]
as if he was tainted with Infidelity, endeavours to make an idle Tale of.
But excepting, I say this Story of this Woman, we hear nothing of any
other heal'd Person; which is Matter of some Speculation: But that the
Persons rais'd from the dead should not at all be mention'd in History for
their Labours and Lives afterwards to the Honour of Jesus, is
absolutely unaccountable. Whether such a profound Silence in History about
them be not shocking of the Credit of the Miracles, let our Divines
consider. I am of Opinion that if Jesus really rais'd these
Persons from the dead; this and no other Reason, in the Providence of God,
can be given for the Silence of Ecclesiastical History about them
afterwards, than to make dead-letter'd Stories of their Miracles,
in order to turn our Heads entirely to the Consideration of their mystical
Signification, without which the Letter, for the Argument before
us, is deserving of no Regard nor Credit. But

3. By way of Objection to the Letter of these three Miracles, let
us consider the[Pg
20] Condition of the Persons rais'd from the dead; and
whether they were at all proper Persons for Jesus to work such a
Miracle upon, in Testimony of his divine Power. If they were improper
Persons according to the Letter, it's not credible that He, who
was the Wisdom of God, would raise them; or if he did, it was because they
were the properest to make mystical Emblems of their Stories.

That Jesus ought to have rais'd all that dy'd, where-ever he
came, during the Time of his Ministry, none, I presume, can hold. Two or
three Instances of his almighty and miraculous Power of this Kind will be
allow'd to be sufficient: But then they must be wisely and judiciously
made Choice of, out of a vast Number of Persons, that must needs die in
that Time. Where then was his Wisdom and Prudence to chuse these three
Persons above others to that Honour? Why were all of them, or indeed any
one of them preferr'd to other Persons of a different Age and Condition in
the World? Nay, if the Letter of their Stories is only to be
regarded, were not all these three Persons almost the improperest and most
unfit of any for Jesus to exercise that Power on?

Jairus's Daughter was an insignificant Girl of twelve
Years old: And there could be no Reason for raising her, but to wipe
sorrow from the Hearts, and Tears from the Eyes of her Parents, who ought
to have been better Philosophers, than immoderately to grieve for her. And
was here a good Reason for Jesus to interpose with his Almighty
Power? No certainly; a Lecture of Patience and Resignation this Case had
been enough. And tho' Jesus could raise her from the dead; yet for
as much as that Favour was to be conferr'd but on a few; and his Miracles
ought to be useful as well as conspicuous, she should have been pass'd by,
as an improper Object of his Power, in Comparison of many others,
presently to be named. If therefore a better Reason, than what's
discernible in the Letter, is not to be fetch'd from the Mystery;
I can't suppose that Jesus, the Wisdom of God would raise this Girl;
but that the modern Belief of her Resuscitation, exclusive of the mystical
Signification, is, as shall be by and by argued, altogether groundless.

The Widow of Naim's Son too was but a νεανισκος Youth,
and whether any thing older than the Girl above is doubtful; but
his Life certainly was of no more Importance to the World after, than[Pg
22] before his Resurrection. And why was he then one of the
three to be rais'd from the dead? Why had he this Honour done him,
before others of greater Age, Worth, and Use to Mankind? Some will say,
for the Comfort or his sorrowful Mother. And is this Reason sufficient? A
Discourse on the Pleasures of Abraham's Bosom, where she would
e'er long meet her Son, had been enough to chear her Heart. If therefore
the Fathers don't help me to a solid mystical Reason, why the Son and only
Son of a Widow was to be rais'd by Jesus, as they were
carrying him to his Burial, I'll not believe, He would raise this dead Boy
rather than many others, for the Manifestation of his Power; but that the
Story of his Resurrection, as shall soon be reasonably proved, was all
Sham and Cheat.

Lazarus indeed was Jesus's Friend, whom he Loved; and as I
will not question but Jesus's Affection was wisely and deservedly
placed on him; so here, to Appearance, was a better Reason for the raising
of him, than of either of the other Two. But even this Reason, supposing Jesus
was to raise but three Persons, is not sufficient against the Cases of
many others, that may be put for the Manifestation of his Power, for the
Illustration of his Wisdom and Goodness, and for the[Pg
23] Conversion of Unbelievers: Consequently, if this Story
of Lazarus be not parabolical, the litteral Fact is disputable,
and obnoxious to such Exceptions presently to be observed against it, as
will not be easily got over.

Jesus rais'd the dead, and wrought other Miracles, say our Divines
often, not only to manifest his own Power and Glory, but his Love to
Mankind, and his Inclination to do them good: For which Reason his
Miracles are useful and beneficial as well as stupendous and supernatural
Acts, on purpose to conciliate Men's Affections as well as their Faith to
him. On this Topick our Divines are copious and rhetorical, when
they write on Jesus's Miracles, as if no more useful and wonderful
Works could be done, than what he did. And I do agree with them, that
(what Reason bespeaks) the Miracles of a pretended Author of Religion
ought to be both as useful and great as well as could be. But such were
not Jesus's Miracles according to Letter, and least of all
his Acts of raising the dead. For if we consider the Persons rais'd by
him, we shall find, he could hardly have exerted his Power on any of less
Importance to the World, both before and after their Resurrection. A young
Girl indeed is fitter to be raised[Pg
24] than a decripid old Woman, who by the Course of Nature
was to return to Corruption again, as soon as restored to Life: And a Boy
rather than an infirm old Man for the same Reason: And Lazarus the
Friend of Jesus, perhaps, and but perhaps, rather than his
profess'd Enemy. But what are these three Persons in Comparison of many
others of other Circumstances? Instead of a Boy, and a Girl
and even of Lazarus, who were all of no Consequence to the
Publick, either before or since; I should think, Jesus ought to
have rais'd an useful Magistrate, whose Life had been a common Blessing;
an industrious Merchant, whose Death was a publick Loss; a Father of a
numerous Family, which for a comfortable Subsistance depended on him. Such
dead Objects of Jesus's Power and Compassion could not but offer
themselves, during the Time of his Ministry, and if he meant to be as
useful as he could, in his Miracles, he would have laid hold on them. If a
few Persons only were to be rais'd from the dead, the foresaid were the
properest, whose Resurrection and Return to Life would have begotten the
Applause as well as the Wonder of the World; would most extensively have
spread Jesus's Fame; and would have gain'd him the Love and[Pg
25] Discipleship of all that heard of his being so great a
Benefactor to Mankind. Such Instances of his Power would have demonstrated
him to be a most benign as well as a mighty Agent; and none in Interest or
Prejudice could have open'd their Mouths against him, especially if the
Persons rais'd from the dead were selected upon the Recommendation of the
People of this or that City. But that an insignificant Boy and a Girl,
(forsooth!) and the obscure Lazarus, are preferr'd by Jesus,
to such publick and more deserving Persons is unaccountable. Their Story
therefore, upon this Argument, savours of Romance and Fraud; and unless
the Mystery help us to, what the Letter can't, a good
reason for Jesus's Conduct here, the Miracles may be hence justly
question'd, and the Credibility of their Report disputed.

But now I am speaking of the Fitness and Unfitness of deceased Persons to
have this grand Miracle wrought on them; it comes into my Head to ask, why
Jesus rais'd not John the Baptist to Life again? A Person
of greater Merits, and more Worthy of the Favour of Jesus and of
this Miracle, could not be. If Jesus could raise any from the dead
he would surely have raised him; and why did he not? This is a reasonable
Question and an[Pg
26] Answer should be thought on for it. Was it a Thing out
of Jesus's Power? Not so; He was Omnipotent, and could by Force or
Persuasion have rescued John's Head out of the Hands of his
Enemies; and the tacking it again to his Body, and the infusing new Life
into him was no more difficult to Jesus, than the Resuscitation of
a stinking Carcass. If Jesus had here exerted his Power, and
rais'd his dearest Friend and choicest Minister for the Preparation, if
not Propagation of the Gospel, none could question his Ability to raise
any others, tho' he had rais'd no more. But in as much as John the
Baptist, one of his singular Merits and Services to Christ,
was overlook'd and neglected by him; and three useless and insignificant
Persons had this Honour done them, the Facts may reasonably be called into
question, and, if the Mysteries don't solve the Difficulty, their litteral
Stories may hence be accounted foolish, fictitious and fabulous;
especially if we consider,

4. That none of these three rais'd Persons had been long enough dead to
amputate all Doubt of Jesus's miraculous Power in their
Resurrection. As to Jairus's Daughter, she was but newly expired,
if at all dead, when Jesus brought her to[Pg
27] Life again. Jesus himself says, she was but
asleep. And according to Theophanes Cerameus[289],
and Theophilact[290]
there is Room to suspect that this Girl was only Κατοχος beside
herself. And it is not impossible, but the passionate Skreams of the
Feminine By-standers might fright her into Fits, that bore the Appearance
of Death; otherwise why did Jesus turn there inordinate Weepers
out of the House, before he could bring her to her Senses again? And why
did he tell her Parents, that she was only in a sleep, but to Comfort them
with the Possibility of his awakening her out of it? Is not this
destructive of the Miracle, and making no more of it, than what another
Man might do? And is there not some Probability, that here's all of this
Story? But supposing she was really dead, yet for the sake of an
indisputable Miracle in her Resurrection, it must be granted, that she
ought to have been much longer, some Days if not Weeks, dead and buried.

As to the Widow of Naim's Son, there was somewhat more of the
Appearance of Death in him, than in Jairus's Daughter. He was
carried forth to his Burial, and so may be presumed to be really a dead[Pg
28] Corpse. But might not here be Fraud or Mistake in the
Case? History and common Fame affords Instances of the mistaken Deaths of
Persons, who sometimes have been unfortunately buried alive, and at other
Times happily, by one Means or other, restored to Life: And who knows but
Jesus, upon some Information or other, might suspect this Youth to
be in a lethargick State, and had a Mind to try, if by chafeing, &c.
he could not do, what successfully he did, bring him to his Senses again:
Or might not a Piece of Fraud be here concerted between Jesus, a
subtil Youth, and his Mother and others; and all the Formalities of a
Death and Burial contrived, that Jesus, whose Fame for a Worker of
Miracles was to be rais'd, might here have an Opportunity to make a shew
of a grand one. The Mourning of the Widow, who had her Tears at Command
and Jesus's casual meeting of the Corpse upon the Road, looks like
Contrivance to put the better Face upon the Matter. God forbid, that I
should suspect, there was any Fraud of this Kind here; but of the
Possibility of it, none can doubt. And where there is a Possibility of
Fraud, it is Nonsense, and mere Credulity to talk of a real, certain and
stupendous Miracle, especially where[Pg
29] the Juggler and pretended Worker of Miracles has been
detected in some of his other Tricks. All that I have to say here to this
Matter, is, that if Jesus had a Mind to raise the Son of this
Widow, in Testimony of his divine Power, he should have suffer'd him to
have been buried two or three Weeks first; otherwise, if the Mystery don't
account for Jesus's stopping the Bearers of the Corpse upon the
Road, here is too much Room for suspicion of Cheat in the Letter of the
Story.

Lazarus's Case seems to be the less exceptionable of the three. He
had been buried four Days, and supposed to be putrified in the
Opinion of his Sister Mary, and of modern Christians: And if so,
his Resuscitation was a most grand and indisputable Miracle. And I could
have wish'd, if I had not loved the Mystery rather than the Letter,
that no Cavil and Exception could have been made to it. Whether Lazarus,
who was Jesus's Friend and beloved Disciple, would not come into
Measures with his Lord, for the Defence of his Honour, and Propagation of
his Fame, Infidels, who take Christianity for an Imposture, will
not question: And whether he would not consent to be interr'd alive, in a
hollow Cave, where there was only a Stone laid at the Mouth of it, as long
as[Pg 30]
a Man could fast, none of them will doubt. Four Days was almost too long
for a Man to fast without danger of Health; but if those four Days
are number'd according to the Arithmetick of Jesus's three Days in
his Grave, they are reducible to two Days and three Nights, which Time, if
no Victuals were secretly convey'd with him, a Man might fast in Lazarus's
Cave. As to the stinking of Lazarus's Carcass: that, Infidels
will say, was but the Assertion of his Sister beforehand, like a Prologue
to a Farce. None of the Spectators at his Resurrection say one Word of his
stinking. And as to the Weepings and Lamentations of Jesus and of
Lazarus's Sisters, they will say that was all Sham and Counterfeit,
the better to carry on the Juggle of a feign'd Resurrection. And what's
worst of all, they will say, that tho' Jesus did call Lazarus
forth with a loud Voice, as if he had been as deaf as a dead Man;
yet his Face was bound about with a Napkin, so that the Spectators
could not discern what was of the Essence of the Miracle, the Change of
his Countenance from a dead to a live one, which is a plain Sign, that it
was all Fraud and Imposture.

God forbid, that I should have the same sense with Infidels, of
this Matter; but to be just to their Suggestions and Imaginations[Pg
31] here, I must needs say, there are some other unhappy
Circumstances, presently to be consider'd, in this Story, which, if they
are not emblematical, make it the most notorious Cheat and Imposture that
ever was put upon Mankind. In the mean Time, from what is here argued, it
is plain, that Lazarus was not so long dead and buried, as that
there is no Room to doubt of the Miracle of his Resurrection.

Now whether these Arguments against these three Miracles, drawn from the
Shortness of the Time, in which these Persons lay for dead, have any Force
in them, let our Divines consider. If nothing of all this is in
their Opinion affecting of the Credit of the Miracles; yet they must
allow, that Jesus, if he could raise the dead, might have made
Choice of other Instances of Persons, more unquestionably dead, who had
lain longer in their Graves, and were in a visible State of Putrefaction.
And if this grand Miracle of raising the dead was to be wrought by Jesus
for the Manifestation of his Glory, and in Testimony of his Authority; he
should have exercised his Power on some such Persons, nominated by the
Magistrates of this or that City, who with the People should be present at
the miraculous Operation, beholding the putrified Bodies,[Pg
32] (without a Napkin before their Faces) and how they were
suddenly enliven'd and invigorated with new Flesh, after the Similitude of
their pristine Form, when in Health and full Strength. Because that Jesus
rais'd not some such Persons to Life, I must take the Stories of the three
Miracles before us to be but typical of more mysterious Works; or believe
them for the Arguments above to be downright Cheats and Fables. And what
is enough to induce a modern Divine to this Opinion. Is

5. The Consideration, that none of these rais'd Persons did or could,
after the Return of their Souls to their Bodies, tell any Tales of their
separate Existence otherwise the Evangelists had not been silent in this
main Point, which is of the Essence of Christianity. Are not our Divines
here reduced to an unhappy Dilemma, either to deny the separate
Existence of the Soul, or the precedent Deaths of these rais'd Persons? As
Christians, We profess to believe both, which seemingly are incompatiable;
or the Evangelists had made such a Relation, as their return'd Souls had
given of the other World. Was any Person, in this Age, to be rais'd to
Life, that had been any time dead; the first Thing[Pg
33] that his Friends and Acquaintance would enquire of him,
would be to know, where his Soul had been; in what Company; and how it had
fared with him; and Historians would certainly record his Narrative. The
same Curiosity could not but possess People of old, when these Miracles
were wrought; and if the rais'd Persons had told any Stories of their
separate Existance, the Evangelists no less unquestionally would have
reported them, in as much as such a Report would have been, not only a
Confirmation of that Doctrine; which is of the Essence of our Religion;
but an absolute Confutation of the Sadducees and Sceptists
of that Age, and of the Materialists of this. But this their
Silence in this Case is of bad Consequence, either to the Doctrine of the
Soul's Existence in Separation from the Body, or to these Miracles
themselves, since we must hereupon almost necessarily hold, that these
rais'd Persons were not at all dead, or that their Souls dy'd with them.

The Author of a Sermon, ascrib'd to St. Augustin tells us[291]
that Lazarus after[Pg
34] his Resurrection made a large Report of Hell,
where he had been: But as this is a mere Fiction of that Author, without
the least Authority from Scripture; so I presume it will be accounted a Blunder
in him, to suppose the Soul of Lazarus, the Friend and beloved of
Jesus, was in Hell. The Soul of Jesus indeed, for Reasons
best known to himself, upon his Death, descended into Hell, when some
think he should rather have gone, with the penitent Thief, into Paradise.
But the Thoughts, that any of Jesus's Friends should go to Hell, I
suppose will not be born with; or what will become of the Preachers of
this Age, who would be accounted Men or that Denomination. And if Lazarus's
Soul had been in Paradise, it was hardly a good Work in Jesus to
recall it, for thirty Years afterwards, to the Miseries and Troubles of
this wicked World. I wish therefore our Divines could determine,
where Lazarus's Soul was for the four Days of his Burial; because
I can't possibly conceive any thing else, than that he was not really
dead, or that his Soul dy'd with him, or went to a bad place, otherwise
after his Resurrection he had never[Pg
35] absconded for fear of the Jews, as if he was
unwilling to die again, and return to the Place from whence he came.

But however it was with the Souls of these rais'd Persons before their
Re-union to their Bodies, here is another Difficulty and Objection against
these Miracles; and how will our Divines get over it? Perhaps they
may say, that tho' these rais'd Persons were before really dead; yet their
Souls were not as yet gone to their Places prepared of God for them, but
continued hovering about their Bodies, like the Flame about the Snuff of a
Candle, with desires

——iterumq; revertiCorpora——

to be again rejoin'd to them. And withall my Heart let this Answer pass,
if our Divines and Infidels can so agree upon it. As for
my own Opinion, it is this, that these Miracles of Jesus are
Parables, and that it was beside the Purpose of the Parable, and of the Evangelists
to say any thing of the Place and State of the Soul upon its Separation
from the Body; otherwise the Letter of their Stories is manifestly
obnoxious to the Objection above, or the Deaths of these pretended rais'd
Persons, upon Christian Principles, are questionable. But

6. And lastly, Let us consider the intrinsick Absurdities and
Incredibilities of the several Stories of these three Miracles. And such
Absurdities shall we find in them, that, if they had been intended as
Testimonies of Jesus's divine Power, had never been inserted in
their Narratives.

As to Jairus's Daughter, and her Resurrection from the dead, St.
Hilary[292]
hints, that there was no such Person as Jairus whose Name was
fictitious, and coin'd with a spiritual Signification for the Use of the
Parable; and he gives this Reason, and a good Reason it is, why he thought
so, because it is elsewhere[293]
intimated in the Gospel, that none of the Rulers of the Synagogues
confessedly believed on Jesus. Is not here then a stumbling-Block
at the Threshold of the Letter of this Story? But why did Jesus
say, this Girl was but in a Sleep? If he was going to work a Miracle in
her Resuscitation, he should not have call'd Death,[Pg
37]Sleep; but if others had been of a contrary
Opinion, he should first have convinced them of the Certainty of her
Death, before he did the great Work on her. And why did he charge the
Parents of the Girl not to speak of the Miracle? If he meant it as
Testimony of his divine Power, he should rather have exhorted them, in
justice to himself to publish it, and make it well known. And why, as St.
Ambrose[294]
puts the Question, did he turn the People out of the House, before he
would raise her? The more Witnesses are present at a Miracle, the better
it is attested, and the more readily believed by others; and who should be
present at the Miracle rather than those who were incredulous of Jesus's
divine Power? Are not all these Circumstances, so many Absurdities,
which, if they are not to be accounted for in the Mystery, are so
far destructive of the Letter, as that it is Nonsense and Folly in
our Divines to talk of a Miracle here, against Jesus's
express Word and Prohibition to the contrary.

As to the Story of the Widow of Naim's Son, excepting what is
before observed of[Pg
38] the shortness of the Time, in which he lay dead, and of
the Unfitness of his Person to be rais'd before an Husband and Father of a
Family, to the Comfort of his Wife and Children, (which are enough to
overthrow the Credulity of the Miracle) I have here no more Fault to find
in the Letter of it.

But the long Story of Lazarus is so brimful of Absurdities, that,
if the Letter alone is to be regarded; St. John, who was then
above a hundred, when he wrote it, had lived beyond his Reason and Senses,
or he could not have committed them.

I have not Room here to make Remarks on all these Absurdities, which
would be the Work of a Volume; but shall single out three or four of them
at present, reserving the rest for another Opportunity, when the whole
Story of this Miracle will appear to be such a Contexture of Folly and
Fraud in its Contrivance, Execution, and Relation, as is not to be
equall'd in all Romantick History; and our Divines will find
themselves so distress'd upon the Dissection and Display of it, as that
they must of Necessity allow this Story to be but a Parable; or, what's
most grievous to think on, give up their Religion upon it.

First then, observe that Jesus is said to have wept
and groan'd for the Death of Lazarus: But why so, says[295]
St. Basil? Was not this an Absurdity to weep at all for
the Death of him, whom he could, and was about to recover to Life again?
Another Man may as reasonably grieve for the Absence of his Friend, whose
Company and Presence he can retrieve in an Instant, as that Jesus
should shed Tears for Lazarus in this Case. If Jesus could
not or would not raise him from the dead, he ought not, as a Philosopher,
who knows Man is born to die, to betray so much Weakness as to weep for
him. Patience and Resignation unto God upon the Death of our dearest
Friends and Relations is what all Philosophers have rightly taught; and Jesus,
one would think, should have been the most Heroical Example of these
Graces; and how came he to fail of it here? A Stoical Apathy had better
became him than such childish and effeminate Grief, which not only makes
him a mean and poor-spirited Mortal; but is a gross Absurdity and
Incredibility upon Consideration of his Will and Power to fetch[Pg
40]Lazarus to Life again. If there be not,
according to the Fathers, Mystery in these Tears of Jesus, they
are a foolish and unnatural Prelude to a Farce, he was acting in the
pretended Resuscitation of Lazarus.

Some antient Catholicks, not being apprised of the Mystery, were so
offended at these Words, Jesus wept, that, as Epiphanius[296]
says, they expung'd them out of their Bibles; and I wonder, they have not,
before now, disturb'd the Faith of Ministers of the Letter, to the utter
Rejection of the Miracle.

Secondly, Observe that John says, it was with a loud
Voice, that Jesus call'd Lazarus forth out of his
Cave. And why, I pray, a louder Voice than ordinary? Was dead Lazarus
deafer than Jairus's Daughter, or the Widow's Son? Or was his Soul
at so great a Distance from his Body, as he could not hear a still and low
Voice? Some such silly Reason as this must be given for this loud
Voice here; but how absurd it is according to the Letter, Infidels
will judge, till Christians can assign a better. The dead can hear the
Whisper of the Almighty, if Power go along with it,[Pg
41] as soon as the Sound of a Trumpet. St. John
then should not have written of a loud Voice, unless he meant to
adapt his Story to the Capacities and Conceptions of the Vulgar, who have
no Apprehensions of God's Power, out of sensible and human Representations
of it.

Thirdly, Because that a Miracle should be well guarded against all
Suspicion of Fraud, I was thinking to make it an Absurdity, that
the Napkin, before Jesus rais'd Lazarus, was not taken
from his Face, that the Spectators might behold his mortified Looks, and
the miraculous Change of his Countenance from Death unto Life. What Infidels
think of this Circumstance I know not: I hope it is not with them a Token
of Fraud and Imposture; tho' I must needs say, that if the Fathers did not
let me in to the Mystery of the Napkin about Lazarus's Face when Jesus
call'd him forth, I should not my self like it.

Fourthly, and lastly, Observe, St. John says, v. 45. that
many of the Jews, who had seen the Things that Jesus did here; believed
on him; and some of them, v. 46. who did not believe, went
their Ways to the Pharisees and told them what Things Jesus had done
in this pretended Miracle,[Pg
42] and how the Business was transacted: Whereupon the
Chief Priests and Pharisees were so far incens'd as v. 53. from that
Day forth they took Council together to put him to Death; and Ch.
xii. 10. consulted, that they might put Lazarus also to Death.
Jesus therefore (and his Disciples and Lazarus fled for
it, for they) v. 54. walk'd no more openly among the Jews, but went
thence into a Country near to the Wilderness (a convenient hiding
Place) and there continued with his Disciples; otherwise in all
Probability they had been all sacrificed.

I dare not argue upon these Circumstances, neither would I, for the
Honour of Jesus have mention'd them; but that my old Friend, the
Jewish Rabbi, who help'd me to the Satirical Invective against Jesus's
Miracle of turning Water into Wine, has hence form'd an Objection
against Lazarus's Resurrection, and sent me a Letter upon
it, desiring me to publish it, and exhort the Clergy to answer it;
otherwise he would clandestinely hand it about to the Prejudice of our
Religion: Whereupon I, rather than Christianity should so suffer, do here
publish it, and it is as follows.

"Sr. When we last discours'd on Jesus's Miracles, I
promised to send you my Thoughts on Lazarus's Resurrection,
which I look upon as a notorious Imposture,[Pg
43] and for the Proof of it, need go no farther, than to
the Circumstances of its Story, which your Evangelist has
related.

"If there had been an indisputable Miracle wrought in Lazarus's
Resurrection; why were the Chief-Priests and Pharisees
so incens'd upon it, as to take Council to put both Jesus and Lazarus
to Death for it? Where was the Provocation? I can conceive none.
Tho' the Jews were ever so canker'd with Malice and Hatred to Jesus
before; yet such a most stupendous Miracle was enough to stop their
Mouths, and turn their Hearts: Or if their Prejudices against Jesus
were insuperable, and they hated him but the more for the Number and
Greatness of his Miracles; yet why is poor Lazarus, inoffensive
Lazarus, upon whom this good and great Work was wrought, an
Object of their Hatred too? Your Divines are to give a credible
and probable Account of this Matter, such a one as will comport with
Reason and Sense; or we shall conclude, that it was Fraud,
detected in this pretended Miracle, which justly provok'd the
Indignation of our Ancestors.

"To say, what is all you can say, that it was downright Inhumanity,
Barbarity and Brutality in the Jews to hate Lazarus[Pg
44] as well as Jesus, will not do here. Tho' this
may pass with many Christians, who are ready to swallow, without
chewing, any evil Reports of our Nation; yet it can't go down with
reasonable and unprejudic'd Men, who must have other Conceptions of
human Nature in all Ages and Nations, than to think it possible, that a
Man, in Lazarus's Case, can be hated and persecuted for having
had such a good and wonderful Work done on him. And why then was he
hated and persecuted? I say, for this, and no other Reason, than because
he was a Confederate with Jesus in the wicked Imposture, he was
putting upon Mankind.

"But supposing, what is never to be granted, that the Jews of
old were so inhuman, brutish, and barbarous as to hate and persecute Lazarus
as well as Jesus for this Miracle; yet why did Jesus and
his Disciples, with Lazarus, run away and abscond upon it? for
they v. 54. walk'd no more openly among the Jews, but went
thence into a Country near to the Wilderness, and there Jesus continued
with his Disciples. Is not here a plain Sign of Guilt and of
Fraud? Men, that have God's Cause, Truth and Power on their Side, never
want Courage and Resolution[Pg
45] to stand to it. And however your Christian Priests
may palliate the cowardly and timerous Conduct of Jesus and his
Confederates in this Case; yet with me, it's like Demonstration, that
there was a discover'd Cheat in the Miracle, or they would undauntedly
have faced their Enemies, without Fears And Apprehensions of Danger from
them.

"Our Ancestors then, who unquestionably detected the Fraud, were in the
right on't to prosecute with Severity, the whole Party concern'd in it:
And if they had aveng'd the Wickedness of it upon Lazarus as
well as they did upon Jesus, I should have commended them for
it. Whether such a monstrous Imposture, as was this pretended Miracle,
happily discover'd does not call aloud for Vengeance and most exemplary
Punishment; and whether any Nation of the World would suffer the like
with Impunity, let any Man judge.

"For all the Reports of your Gospels, it is unnatural to hate a
miraculous Healer of Diseases; and there must be somewhat supprest about
the Inveteracy of the Jews to Jesus, or his healing
Power, if it was so great as is imagined, must have reconciled them to
him: But that they should hate not only Jesus for[Pg
46] raising the dead, but the Person rais'd by him, is
improbable, incredible, and impossible.

"If Historians can parallel this Story of the Malignity of the Jews
towards Jesus and Lazarus upon such a real Miracle, with
any Thing equally barbarous and inhuman, in any other Sect or Nation; we
will acknowledge the Truth of it against our ancient Nation: Or if such
Inhumanity, abstractedly consider'd, be at all agreeable to the
Conceptions any one can form of Human Nature in the most uncivilis'd and
brutish People, we will allow our Ancestors, in this Case, to have been
that People.

"Was such a real and indisputable Miracle, as this of Lazarus
is supposed, to be wrought at this day in Confirmation of Christianity,
I dare say, it would bring all us Jews, to a Man, into the
Belief of it: And I don't think it possible, for any People to be so
begotten, byass'd, and prejudiced, as not to be wrought on by it. Or if
they would not part with their Interests and Prejudices upon it, they
would have more Wit and Temper, than to break forth into a Rage against
all or any of the Persons concern'd in it. And, for my Life, I can
entertain no worse Thoughts of our old Nation.

"Supposing God should send an Ambassador at this day, who, to convince
Christians of the Mischiefs and Inconvenience of an Hireling
Priesthood, should work such a Miracle as was this of Lazarus's
Resurrection, in the Presence of a multitude of Spectators; how would
your Bishops and Clergy behave themselves upon it? Why,
they would be as mute as Fishes; or if they did fret and grieve inwardly
for the Loss of their Interests; yet they would have more Prudence (ask
them else,) than to show their Anger openly, and persecute both Agent
and Patient for it. Wherefore then are they so censorious and
uncharitable as to preach and believe another Notion and Doctrine of our
Ancestors?

"But if a false Prophet, for the subversion of an Hireling
Priesthood, should, in spite to the Clergy, counterfeit
such a Miracle, and be detected in the Operation; how then would Priests
and People, Magistrates and Subjects behave upon it? Why, they would be
full of Indignation, and from that day forth would take Council to
put the Impostor and his Confederate to Death, of which they would
be most deserving; and if they did not abscond and fly for it, like Jesu[Pg
48] and his Disciples to a Wilderness in the Country
to hide themselves, the Rage of the Populace would hardly wait the
Leisure of Justice to dispatch and make terrible Examples of them. Was
not this exactly the Case of Jesus's Imposture in the
Resurrection of Lazarus; and of the Punishment he was threaten'd
with, and afterwards most justly underwent for it?

"Mankind may be in some Cases very obdurate, and so hard of Belief, as
to stand it out against Sense, Reason and Demonstration: But I will not
think worse of our Ancestors than of the rest of Mankind; or that they
any more than others would have withstood a clear and indisputable
Miracle in Lazarus's Resuscitation. Such a manifest Miracle, let
it be wrought for what End and Purpose, we can possibly imagine, would
strike Men with Awe and Reverence; and none could hate and persecute the
Author of the Miracle; least He who could raise the dead, should exert
his Power against themselves, and either wound or smite them dead with
it. For which Reason, the Resurrection of Lazarus, on the
certain Knowledge of our Ancestors, was all Fraud, or they would have
reverenc'd and adored the Power of him, that did it.

"It may be true, what John says, that many of the Jews, who
had seen the Things that Jesus did, believed on him, that is,
believed that he had wrought here a great Miracle: But who were these?
the ignorant and credulous, whom a much less juggler than Mr. Fawkes
could easily impos'd on. But on the other hand, it is certain, according
to Christian Commentators, that some of them did not
believe the Miracle, but went their ways to the Pharisees and told
them what Things Jesus had done, that is, told them, after what
manner the Intrigue was managed; and complain'd of the Fraud in it. How
they came to suspect and discover the Fraud, was not John's
Business to relate; and for want of other ancient Memorials, we can only
guess at it. Perhaps they discern'd some motion in Lazarus's
Body, before the Word of Command, to come forth, was given;
perhaps they discover'd some Fragments of the Food, that for four
days in the Cave, he had subsisted on. But however this was, they
could not but take Notice of the Napkin about his Face all the
while; which Jesus, to prevent all suspicion of Cheat, should
have first order'd to be taken off, that his mortify'd Countenance might
be view'd,[Pg
50] before the miraculous Change of it to Life was
wrought. This neglect in Jesus (which I wonder John had
no more Wit than to hint at) will be a lasting Objection to the Miracle.
Jesus was wiser, than not to be aware of the Objection, which he
would have obviated, if he durst, by a Removal of the Napkin, to the
satisfaction of all Spectators there present. Because this was not done,
we Jews now deny, there was any Miracle wrought; and, whether
our Unbelief upon this Circumstance be not well grounded, we appeal to
Christian Priests themselves, who must own, that if there was a Miracle
here, the Matter was ill conducted by Jesus, or foolishly
related by his Evangelist."

"It is a sad Misfortune, that attends our modern enquiry after Truth,
that there are no other Memorials extant of the Life and Miracles of Jesus,
than what are written by his own Disciples. Not only old Time has
devour'd, but Christians themselves, (which in the Opinion of the
impartial makes for us) when they got Power into their Hands, wilfully
destroy'd many Writings of our Ancestors, as well as of Celsus
and Porphiry and others, which they could not answer;[Pg
51] otherwise I doubt not but they would have given us
clear Light into a the Imposture of Lazarus's Resurrection: But
if Jesus, according to his own Evangelists, was
arraign'd for a Deceiver and Blasphemer, in pretending
to the Sonship and Power of God by his Miracles; in all Probability this
Piece of Fraud in Lazarus was one Article of the Indictment
against him; and what makes it very likely, is that the Chief
Priests and Pharisees, from the Date of this pretended
Miracle, took Council together to put him to Death, not
clandestinely or tumultuously to murder him, but judicially to punish
him with Death, which, if they proved their Indictment by credible and
sufficient Witnesses, he was most worthy of.

"As it is plain from the Story in John, that there was a
Dispute among the By-standers at Lazarus's Resurrection, whether
it was a real Miracle or not; so it is the Opinion of us Jews,
which is of the Nature of a Tradition, that the Chief-Priests
and civil Magistrates of Bethany, for the better Determination
of the Dispute and quieting of the Minds of the People, requir'd that Jesus
should re-act the Miracle upon another Person, there lately dead and
buried. But Jesus[Pg
52] declining this Test of his Power, the whole Multitude
of Believers as well as of Unbelievers before, question'd the
Resurrection of Lazarus; and were highly incens'd against both
him and Jesus for the Deceit in it. And this was one
Reason among others of that vehement and Universal Outcry and Demand, at
Jesus's Tryal, for his Crucifixion. I'll not answer for the
Certainty of this Tradition or Opinion, but as the Expedient was
obvious, so it has the Face of Truth and Credibility; and for the Proof
of it, I need only appeal to Christian Priests and Magistrates;
whether, under a Dispute of a Miracle of that Consequence, they would
not require, for full Satisfaction, it should be acted over again; and,
if the Juggler refused, whether there would not be a general
Clamour of People of all Ranks for his Execution.

"Matthew, Mark and Luke, who knew as much of
this Sham-Miracle as John, had not the Confidence to report it;
because, when they wrote, many Eye-Witnesses of the Fraud were alive to
disprove and contradict them; therefore they confined their Narratives
to Jesus's less juggling Tricks, that had pass'd more current:
But after the Jewish State[Pg
53] was dissolved, their judicial Records were destroy'd,
and every Body dead that could confute him, John ventures abroad
the Story of this Miracle; and if the good Providence of God had not
infatuated him, in the Insertion of the Circumstances here observed, it
might have pass'd through all Generations to come, as well as it has
done for many past, for a grand Miracle.

"Thus, Sir, have you a few of my Thoughts on the pretended
Miracle of Lazarus's Resurrection. I have more to bestow on it,
but that I would not be tedious. There's no need to argue against the
other two Resurrection-Stories. You know omne majus includit minus,
and if the greatest of the three Miracles be an Imposture, the two less
ones of Consequence are Artifice and Fraud. And rather than the Miracle
of Lazarus shall stand its Ground, I'll have t'other Bout at it
from some other Circumstances; the Consideration of which will make it
as foolish and wicked an Imposture, as ever was contrived and transacted
in the World; such a wicked Imposture of most pernicious
Consequence to the Welfare of the Publick, that it is no Wonder, the
People, by an unanimous Voice, call'd for the Releasement[Pg
54] of Barabbas, a Robber and Murderer, before Jesus.
I don't suppose these Arguments against this Miracle will be convincing
of your Christian Clergy, who are hired to the Belief of it. But
however, a Bishop of many thousands a Year to believe,
can't in Conscience deny, that the Arguments above are a sufficient
Justification of our Jewish Disbelief of it.

"If you, Sir, should write a Discourse gainst the Letter of the Story
of Jesus's Resurrection, I beg of you to accept of a few of my
Conceptions on that Head, which, I promise you, shall be out of the
common Road of thinking. Your Divines think they have exhausted
that Subject, and absolutely confuted all Objections that can be made
against it, but are much mistaken. Sometimes we Jews dip into
their Writings on this Head, and always smile with Indignation at their
foolish Invectives against the Blindness of the Eyes, and Hardness of
the Hearts of our Ancestors. If they would but favour us with a Liberty
to write for our selves, a reasonable Liberty, which in this
Philosophical Age we don't despair of, especially under so wise just and
good a Civil Administration, as this Nation is happily bless'd with, we[Pg
55] would cut them out some more Work, which they are not
aware of. In the mean Time I am your assured Friend,"

N.N.

So ends the Letter of my Friend, the Jewish Rabbi, which consists
of calm and sedate Reasoning, or I would not have
publish'd it; for I am resolv'd he shall no more impose upon me with his
ludicrous and bantering Stuff, like his Satirical Invective against Jesus's
Miracle of turning Water into Wine, so offensive to our Godly Bishops.
And because it consists of calm and sedate Reasoning,
which Bishop Smalbroke allows of, I hope his Lordship will
take it into Consideration, and write an Answer to it, which I, without
the Help of the Mystery, can't do.

If the foresaid Letter be offensive to our Clergy, who
don't judge it meet that the Jews should take this Liberty to
write against the Miracles of our Saviour, and in Vindication of their own
disbelief of Christianity, I beg of them, for the Love of Jesus,
not to let their Displeasure be visibly seen; because the Jews
will then laugh in their Sleeves, and perhaps openly insult and triumph
upon it: But if they will privately acquaint me with their Displeasure[Pg
56] at it, I'll promise them to hold no more Correspondence
with such Jewish Rabbies; neither will I ever hereafter publish
any other Objections against Christ's Religion and Miracles, than
what come from the Hotentots and Pawawers: and then it
will be strange, if our dignified Clergy, of most grave and demure
Looks, can't solidly confute the worst, that such ignorant and illiterate
People can urge against them.

And thus have I done with my Objections against the Letter of these three
Miracles. If our Divines shall think there is little or nothing of
Force in them; then an Answer, which I should be glad to see, may the more
easily be made to them. As for my part, without being conceited of the
Acuteness and Strength of any of the Objections, I think it impossible
satisfactorily to reply to them, without having Recourse to the Opinions
of the Fathers, that these three Miracles, whether they were ever
litterally transacted or not, are now but emblematical Representations of
mysterious and more wonderful Operations to be perform'd by Jesus.

To the Fathers then let us go for their mystical Interpretation of these
Miracles. St. Augustin, in his Introduction to a Sermon on the
Widow of Naim's Son, says[Pg
57][297]
thus, "There are some so silly as to stand amazed at the corporal Miracles
of Jesus, and have no Consideration of his greater and spiritual
Miracles, signified by them: but others who are wiser can hear of the
Things that Jesus did on Men's Bodys, without being astonish'd at
them, chusing rather to contemplate with Admiration his more wonderful
Works on Men's Souls; after the similitude of bodily Miracles. And these
are the Christians that conform their Studies to the Will of our Lord; who
would have his corporal Miracles, spiritually interpreted: For He wrought
not Miracles in the Flesh, for the sake of such Miracles abstractedly
consider'd; but[Pg
58] that, if they were surprising to some Mens Senses, they
should be more astonishing to the Understanding of others, who apprehend
the spiritual Meaning of them. And they who by Contemplation can attain to
the mystical Signification of Jesus's Miracles, are the best
Scholars and most learn'd Disciples in his Church and School. And, (speaking
of the Absurdity of Jesus's cursing the Figtree according to the Letter)
presently after says, that this he observ'd, that he might persuade his
Hearers to think, that our Lord Jesus therefore wrought Miracles,
that he might signify somewhat by them, which he would have his Disciples
to learn and consider of. Come now, says he, and let us see what
we are mistically and spiritually to understand by the Stories of the
three Persons rais'd from the dead."

There are two Ways, that the Fathers took in the moral and mystical
Interpretation of these Miracles: One was from the Number three,
and their Difference in Magnitude. According to which they said with St. Augustin[298]
that these three[Pg
59] sorts of dead Persons, so rais'd to Life, are Figures
of three sorts of Sinners, whom Jesus raiseth from the death of
Sin to the Life of Righteousness. They who have conceiv'd Sin in their
Hearts, and have not brought it forth into Act; are figured by Jairus's
Daughter, who lay dead in the House of her Father, and was not taken forth
to her Burial. Others, who after Cogitation and Consent, pass into actual
Sin are figured by the Young Man, carried towards his Grave. But those
Sinners, who are habituated and long accustom'd to Sin, are like Lazarus
bury'd, and in a stinking Condition under the Corruption[Pg
60] of it; whom Jesus, for all that, with the loud
Voice of the Prædication of his Gospel, will call forth out of the
Death and Grave of their Sins to a new Life. So does St. Augustin
make these three dead Persons and their Resurrections, Emblems of the said
three Sorts of Sinners, who are dead in Trespasses and Sins, and by the
Power of Jesus quicken'd to a Life of Righteousness. And to this
Opinion of St. Augustin, do St. Ambrose, Eusebius
Gallicanus, and Venerable Bede agree. And according to this
Notion of these Miracles they descend to a particular Explication of the
several Parts of their Stories. As to give you two or three Instances.

The People who were turn'd out of the House, upon the raising of Jairus's
Daughter, which is an Absurdity according to the Letter
are, says[299]Bede, a Multitude of wordly and wicked Thoughts, which, except they
are excluded from the Secrets of the Heart, are a Hindrance of the
Resurrection of a Sinner to a new Life.

The Bearers of the Young Man[300]
to his Burial are Vices, evil Spirits, Hæreticks, and Seducers; and the Widow,
his Mother, to whom he was restored, is the Church, who mourns for
the Death of such Sinners, as are typified by that Young Man.

Jesus's weeping for dead Lazarus, which is an Absurdity
according to the Letter, is a Sign[301]
of the deplorable State, that habitual Sinners are in, enough to excite
the Sorrows and Mournings of good Christians, who have the Spirit of Christ,
for them. And the Stone that lay at the Grave of Lazarus, is[302]
a figure of the Hardness of the Heart of such a Sinner[Pg
62] which must be taken away before Jesus will call
him to a new Life. So do the Fathers moralise and allegorise every Minute
Circumstance of these three Miracles, as any one, who will consult them,
may find, and save me the Trouble of a tedious Recital of their
Authorities.

But the other mystical Way of interpreting these three Miracles is by
making them Types of three great Events at the Time of Christ's
spiritual Advent. Accordingly the raising of Jairus's Daughter is
a Type of the Conversion of the Jews at that Day, as Eusebius
Gallicanus[303]
and venerable Bede[304]
and others expound it. By Jairus, the Ruler of a Synagogue;
is meant Moses[305];
and by his Daughter is to be understood the Jewish Church, which,
being at present in a State of Spiritual Death, will be revived and
converted in the Perfection of Time. And to the mystical Resurrection or
Restitution of the Jewish Synagogue, call'd Jairus's[Pg
63] Daughter, will Jesus come[306]
at the same Time he heals the Woman of the Church of her Issue of Blood.
And this is the Reason that the Stories of these two Miracles are blended
together by the Evangelists, with their synchronical Numbers of
the Age of the Girl and of the Disease of the Woman; because they
are Types of that blessed Scene of Affairs at the Conversion of the Jews,
when the Fulness of the Gentiles is come in. Concerning which
blessed state of the Church, Origen[307]
says, Jesus wrought many Miracles, by Way of Type and Figure.

Among all the Miracles that Jesus wrought, and are recorded by
the Evangelists, I think, as far as I have had Occasion to
observe, the Fathers are most scanty in their Interpretations of that of
the[Pg
64] Widow of Naim's Son: Excepting what is before
noted of his being a figure of a Sinner dead in actual, tho' not habitual
Sin, I find very little. But if Origen's Comments on this Miracle
had been extant, I dare say he would have given us this following
Interpretation of it. This Widow, he would have call'd the Church; and her
only Son or masculine Offspring, he would have call'd the Spiritual
Sense of the Scriptures, which is now dead, and that the Ministers
of the Letter, who are his Bearers, are for interring him within
the Earth of the Letter: But Jesus, upon his
Spiritual Advent will put a stop to the Intention of such Bearers, by
reviving the Spiritual Sense of the Scriptures; and by restoring
it, like a quicken'd Son, to the Comfort of his Mother, the
Church; who has been in a sorrowful and lamentable Condition upon the
Death and Want of it: This, I am sure, would be Origen's
Interpretation of this Miracle, which, if I had Room here, by a little
Circumlocution, I could prove.

As to Lazarus's Resurrection, it is in the Opinion of the Fathers[308]
a Type of the[Pg
65] general and mystical Resurrection of Mankind in the
Perfection of Time. But this is a most copious Subject; and unless I could
here throughly handle it, I had much better say nothing.

And thus have I done with the three Resurrection Stories. If the Convocation,
next Session, would determine by an Orthodox Vote, whether Jesus
rais'd any more, than the said three Persons, from the dead or not; I
would present them with a new and more entertaining Chain of Thoughts
against these Miracles; such a Chain of Thoughts, as, upon the Conclusion,
let them hold which Side of the Question, they please, will necessarily
induce us to hold the mystical Meaning of these Miracles, or to grant that
Jesus rais'd none from the dead at all.

My next and last Discourse on Jesus's Miracles shall be
against the Letter of the Story of his own Resurrection, in which, if our
Bishops will keep their Temper and Patience, till I publish it,
I'll cut out such a Piece of Work for our Boylean[Pg
66] Lectures, as shall hold them tug, so long as the
Ministry of the Letter and an Hireling Priesthood
shall last. If Christ be not risen, then, according to the
Inference of St. Paul, is their Preaching vain; and why
should the People be any longer charg'd with the Maintenance of an
ignorant and idle Order of Men, to no Use and Purpose?

If I had not had Experience of it, I could never have believed that, for
all the ludicrous Nature of these Discourses, our dignified
Clergy could have been so foolish or malicious as to prosecute me
for an Infidel and Blasphemer upon them. How a Man may be
mistaken in himself! I took my self for a real Advocate for the Truth of
Christianity; and was so vain as to imagine these Discourses tended to a
Demonstration of Jesus's Messiahship: And tho' the Bishop
of London may be of a contrary Opinion, yet I am still so
conceited of my Ability to defend our Religion, that I'll stake my Life
against his Bishoprick, which I'll not be troubled with, if I win
it, that he can't form an Objection against Christianity, which I can't
solidly confute, and make our Readers merry too, with his Weakness and
Impertinence in it. But perhaps it may be unbecoming of his Lordship's
Character, and against the[Pg
67] Grain, to make an Objection to that Religion, which he
finds much temporal, as well as some spiritual Comfort in
the Profession of; I will therefore descend to another Proposal, viz.
If he'll but publish an Answer to the Jewish Rabbi's Letter in
this Discourse, and vouchsafe me the pleasure of a Reply to him; then (to
save the Civil Magistrate's Trouble) I will suffer any Punishment that in
his Clemency he shall think fit to inflict on me, for what's past. Oh,
what a Hazard do I here run of Life or Liberty!

Some Christians, in my Case, would think it a sad Misfortune to be
odiously represented as an Infidel and Blasphemer; but I,
in Temper and Principle, despise such Obloquies, Slanders and Defamations;
and would not give a Rush to remove them, so long as I had the Answer of a
good Conscience that I was undeserving of them: But considering, that it
is the Duty of a Christian to seek the Peace and Friendship of all about
him, and especially of our good Bishops, who, in Compassion to the
Danger they think my Soul is in, have taken zealous and laudable Pains
with the Civil Magistrate for my Conviction and Conversion; I do
here, for the sake of a Reconciliation with their Lordships and
other good People, make a formal[Pg
68] and solemn Confession of my Christian Faith, which tho'
I don't express in the Words of the Apostical, Nicene or Athanasian
Creeds; yet will do it in such Terms as will be a Demonstration that at
the Bottom I am found as a Roch. Be it known then to all Christian
People, that

Imprimis, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the
Ministry of the Letter of the Old and New Testament is
downright Antichristianism.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the
Miracles of Jesus, as they are recorded by the Evangelists, litterally
understood, are the lying Wonders of Antichrist.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that all
opposition and Contradiction to spiritual and allegorical Interpretations
of the Scripture, is the Sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Ministry
of the Spirits or allegorical Interpretations of the Law and the
Prophets will be the Conversion of Jews and Gentiles.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Ministry
of the Letter, and an Hireling-Priesthood have been the Cause of
the Infidelity and Apostacy of these latter Times.

Item, I believe upon the Authority of the Fathers, that the Spirit
and Power of Jesus will soon enter the Church and expel
Hireling-Priests, who make Merchandise of the Gospel, out of her, after
the manner he is suppos'd to have driven the Buyers and Sellers
out of the Temple.

These are a few Articles of that Faith, once deliver'd to the Saints
of the primitive Church, which I firmly believe, and will earnestly
contend for. Now I appeal to the Christian World, whether a Man of such a
Faith, like Heart of Oak, can be an Infidel or Blasphemer. Upon this
ingenuous Confession of my Faith, which I make by way of Atonement for my
past supposed Errors and Offences, I hope the Bishops and all good
Christian People will be reconciled to me.

St. James says, that Faith without Works is dead, and how
a Man ought to show his Faith by his Works, without[Pg
70] which Faith is an empty and airy Nothing. Accordingly I
am making what haste I can to show the Sincerity of my Faith by these my Works
and Discourses of this Kind. And by the Grace of God, I hope our
Bishops will find me as unmoveable as a Rock in the said Faith.

According to the foresaid Articles of this my Faith, I am so fully
convinced, not only of the Error of the Ministry of the Letter,
but of the Mischiefs and Inconveniences of an Hireling-Priesthood,
that, having set my Shoulders to the Work, I am resolv'd, by the Help of
God, to endeavour to give both a Lift out of this World. This is
fair and generous Warning to our Clergy to sit fast, and look to
their own Safety, or they may find me a stronger Man than they may be
aware of. And tho' I don't expect long to survive the Accomplishment of so
great and glorious a Work; yet I am delightfully ravish'd and transported
with the Forethought and Contemplation of the Happiness of Mankind, upon
the Extinction of Ecclesiastical Vermin, out of God's House; when
the World will return to its Primogenial and Paradisaical
State of Nature, Religion and Liberty; in which we shall be all taught
of God, and have no need of a foolish and contentious
Priest, hired to harangue[Pg
71] us with his Noise and Nonsense. Which blessed State of
the World God of his infinite Mercy hasten, for the sake of our Spiritual
Messiah, Mediator and Redeemer Jesus Christ. To whom be Glory for
ever, Amen.

[283]
The last of the three Evangelists writing but fifteen Years
after our Lord's Ascension, might think it needless so mention a Miracle
concerning a Person, living so near Jerusalem, where there was
so great a Fame thereof, and so many living Witnesses. St. John,
writing his Gospel, say the Ancients, above sixty Years after our Lord's
Ascension, when by the Deaths of the Person, and most of the Witnesses
that were present at his Resurrection, the Memory and Fame of it might
be much impair'd, had great Reason to perpetuate the Memory of it, by
this large Rehearsal of it. In Loc. Johan.